The state may well choose to accommodate things for which the
constitution does not compel accommodation.
Is it the religious motive of the driver that matters? Or the
conduct of the passenger? Can these taxi drivers discriminate
against all those who drink alcohol? For that matter, why don't
they, if that is the basis for the action.
This is an arbitrary, idiosyncratic interpretation of the dictates of
Islam with so many internal inconsistencies as to not be the sort of
thing that needs be granted the hammer of constitutionalizing the
accommodation. Of course the fact that it is so idiosyncratic
doesn't really matter (much) except insofar as it can be shown to
really be non-genuine -- because how do they (logically) distinguish
between those who had wine on the plane, those carrying bottles in
luggage, those carrying bottles in bags, those carrying bottles in
the "open"?
As to color coding by this or that passenger -- is that not a form of
discrimination against passengers too? You can only take green cabs,
but others can take either green or purple?
Curious to me how this little aberrant understanding of Islam in
practice would get started and then grow as it did. Interesting
demonstration of group-think.
Steve
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567
2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Washington, DC 20008 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/
"In these words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: It
goes on."
Robert Frost
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
